Date: 1905
Source: Lenin Miscellany, vol. 26
Pages: 91-93

Appendix.
1654
QUESTIONS FOR THE LECTURER.

1) Why is an alliance with Socialist-Revolutionaries and radicals for an armed uprising better than an alliance with liberals and other elements bypassed by the Duma, in order to achieve elections on the basis of direct, secret, and so forth suffrage?

2) Where does Parvus speak of the fact that the proletariat, supporting the better part of the bourgeoisie, does not know that in general and as a whole the bourgeoisie is its enemy of tomorrow?

3) Does propaganda and agitation among radical-democratic elements have greater chances than propaganda and agitation for a Constituent Assembly*?

4) Will the Bolsheviks take violent measures to disperse the electors and prevent elections from taking place, or will they limit themselves only to propaganda for an armed uprising?

5) Does Comrade Lenin think that "active boycott" will bring closer the moment of uprising? Can one hope to witness a revolutionary uprising before the convening of the State Duma?

If yes, the question of attitude toward the State Duma loses its urgency; if no, will a more revolutionary composition of the Duma not create a more revolutionary atmosphere?

Does the slogan put forward by Iskra of organizing a revolutionary self-government of the people alongside pressure on the electors not answer the complexity and duality of the moment?

6) To the Chairman of the Meeting.

I earnestly request Comrade Lenin to dwell, if possible in greater detail, on that passage from his pamphlet "What Is To Be Done?" which speaks of the introduction of consciousness from without and which the Menshevik opponent touched upon.

A Bolshevik.

1 In Lenin Miscellany, vol. V, p. 401, Lenin's "Plan for a Report" is printed, delivered in one of the colonies abroad in autumn 1905. A comparison of the record of discussion following the report printed here and the notes submitted to the lecturer shows that all these materials refer to one and the same report. The basic theme of the report in expanded form is given in a series of articles (see, for example, Works, vol. VIII, pp. 166–177 and 296–309). As an appendix we give the notes submitted to Lenin during his report.

2 The opponent Volgin, in speaking of "substitution," was probably referring to the words of Martyanov in No. 102 of Iskra to the effect that Lenin had "imperceptibly substituted the concept: revolution and dictatorship." Lenin in "Two Tactics" (Works, vol. VIII, pp. 115 and 119) wrote on this subject: "Vpered and Proletarii 'substitute' the concept of revolution and dictatorship. Iskra does not wish such a 'substitution'... You have unintentionally spoken a great truth. You have confirmed with a new formulation our position that Iskra trails in the wake of the revolution, lapses into a liberationist formulation of its tasks, while Vpered and Proletarii give slogans that lead forward the democratic revolution." Lenin concludes the question of "substitution" with the following words: "...when the democratic bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie rises yet another step, when the fact will be not only revolution, but the complete victory of revolution,—then we shall 'substitute' (perhaps amid terrible outcries from new future Martyanovs) the slogan of democratic dictatorship with the slogan of the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, a complete socialist transformation."

3 The words: "revolutionary overcoming of the Bulygin Duma" are taken from Martov's article "On the Agenda. Boycott of the Bulygin Duma and Revolutionary Self-Government of the People" in No. 109 of Iskra of September 11 (August 29), 1905.

4 According to the Manifesto of August 19 (6), 1905, the Bulygin Duma was not a legislative, but only an "advisory" body.

5 Critique of the Menshevik slogan "revolutionary self-government" see Works, vol. VIII, pp. 172–175 and 308–309.

6 In No. 108 of Iskra of August 26 (13) there is a major article "Our Tactics and the State Duma." It breaks down into two parts: first there is a letter to the editorial office from Cherevarin, and then an extensive postscript by F. Dan. In this postscript an accusation was brought against the Bolsheviks in their alleged desire to abstain from active participation in the Duma campaign, in "absenteeism," "non-interference," in the theory of "abstention," in the theory of "folded arms." See on this Lenin's Works, vol. VIII, pp. 166–167.

7 In No. 110 of Iskra of September 23 (10), 1905, Parvus in the article "Social-Democracy and the State Duma" wrote: "Instead of discussions about whether to elect Ivan Fomich or Foma Ivanovich, they (the workers, Ed.) put on the agenda political questions. Here we can discuss both the policy of the government, and the tactics of the liberals, and the class struggle, the State Duma itself. All this leads to the revolutionization of the masses." See on this Works, vol. VIII, p. 219.

8 On the comparison of the positions of Martov, Cherevarin, and Parvus see Lenin's Works, vol. VIII, pp. 212, 273, 299, 316, Lenin Miscellany, vol. V, p. 418, Lenin Miscellany, vol. XVI, pp. 196, 223.

9 In Lenin's article in No. 16 of Iskra of February 14 (1), 1902, "Political Agitation and 'Class Point of View'" it is said: "...It is necessary to follow carefully all and any conflicts with the government of any social stratum whatever; precisely in virtue of 'class point of view' it is impermissible for a social-democrat to remain indifferent to the discontent and protests of the Stakhoviches" (Works, vol. IV, p. 305).

10 This refers to the well-known pamphlet by Plekhanov "On Our Tactics Regarding the Struggle of the Liberal Bourgeoisie Against Tsarism" (Geneva, 1905). The pamphlet had the subtitle: "A Letter to the Central Committee" (Plekhanov, Works, vol. XIII); on Lenin's views of Plekhanov's pamphlet see Lenin Miscellany, vol. V, pp. 61–63.

11 This refers to Lenin's article "Persecutors of the Zemstvo and Hannibals of Liberalism" in Nos. 2–3 of Zarya (December, 1901). See Works, vol. IV, pp. 119–157.

12 In No. 10 of Vpered of March 15 (2), 1905 there was published an article by V. Filatov-Severtsev (signed V. S.) "The Zemsky Sobor and Our Policy." In the concluding paragraph of the article it was said: "Our first task regarding the Zemsky Sobor will be to kindle the inevitable conflict between it and the tsarist government and transform, with the help of a popular uprising, the Zemsky Sobor into a National Assembly, which will itself be forced under the pressure of revolutionary politics to yield place to another, truly Constituent Assembly, but we shall not for a moment renounce the action of the armed people even then, for only under its pressure can we pass from the Constituent Assembly to the Convention,—from autocracy to a republic."

13 Plekhanov in the article "On the Question of Seizing Power" in No. 96 of Iskra of April 18 (5), 1905 wrote: "...not Iskra, but Vpered preaches opportunism—and indeed the worst, most harmful opportunism... Marx and Engels would have condemned the tactics of Vpered and approved the tactics of Iskra" (Plekhanov, Works, vol. XIII, p. 211).

Lenin's critique of this article was given in his report at the Third Congress and in the article "On a Provisional Revolutionary Government" (Works, vol. VII, pp. 262–272 and 314–323; see also Lenin Miscellany, vol. V, pp. 252–257 and 302–306).